Federal criminal investigation Hunter Biden focuses on his business dealings (Update: DOJ appoints special counsel) (1 Viewer)

[SaintForLife]

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their report on the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine.

Baturina is referenced in the 87-page report, which was released Wednesday, addressing her payment to Biden’s investment firm in early 2014.

“Baturina became Russia’s only female billionaire when her plastics company, Inteko, received a series of Moscow municipal contracts while her husband was mayor,” it said in providing background on the businesswoman.

The report described her involvement with Biden as “a financial relationship,” but declined to delve deeper into why the wire transfer was made.

The probe also found that Baturina sent 11 wires transfers between May and December 2015 to a bank account belonging to BAK USA, a tech startup that filed for bankruptcy in March 2019.

Nine of those 11 wire transfers were first sent to Rosemont Seneca Partners, the investment firm founded by Biden and Chris Heinz, stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, before being transferred to BAK USA.

Hunter Biden received $3.5M wire transfer from Russian billionaire: Senate report

Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the richest woman in Russia and the widow of Yury Luzhkov, the former mayor of Moscow, Senate Republicans revealed in their r…

nypost.com

We all know their is massive corruption on both sides of the aisle. Here is an alleged allegation against Hunter Biden who was allegedly enriching himself because his Dad was Vice President.

 

[wardorican]

Oh, I think more then a few people, even some Americans who watch his show regularly and concur with his political views, might agree that Colbert stopped being just a talk show host a long time ago when he made his political views laced with commentary, hand-picked like-minded celebrities or even politicians who come on his show and agree with his views, almost like a echo chamber. John Stewart has a new talk show right now on Apple and he's not even trying to mix his political views in with humor, he's all too serious with his guests, discussing socio-political issues in a manner not unlike Anderson Cooper, or any other _____ CNN, FOX, or MSNBC commentators or "journalists".

Once Colbert got his foot through the door, started hosting his own TV show and began giving the appearance, aura, and pretense of presenting his views on politics almost akin to Anderson Cooper's 360 on CNN, he became just as much a potential target for criticism in as much as Greenwald, Tucker Carlson, or Sean Hannity. Saying he's just a " talk show host" is perhaps a not completely honest take on what function or content he uses it for.

Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, and Ellen Degeneres are also "talk show hosts", but their all nowhere near as serious, or as overtly critical plus their all infinitely more annoying, pretensious or come across as credible-sounding. Colbert also used to work as a news reporter in South Carolina, he just later found out that slick, biting political satire mixed with comedy aimed for mostly liberal audiences first on The Daily Show, then his own late-night " talk show", presenting himself as being more-serious then he lets on most of the time was a better way of airing his grievances then continue being some boring, unknown, local TV network reporter in South Carolina.

If he'd stayed on that route, its very likely this country would've never have heard of him.

You clearly don't know his back story. He was always into acting. Went to Northwestern, started out at second city. Took him 2 years to get on stage. Helped create strangers with candy, later the Dana Carvey show, and the Ambiguously Gay Duo. He did a stint at ABC good morning America to get his face out there. Then the daily show, and the rest you stated. He never wanted to be a news reporter.

Not even sure he was on local SC news. Any proof of that? Even if so, lots of actors use local news to get used to performing on camera.

 

[Saintman2884]

You clearly don't know his back story. He was always into acting. Went to Northwestern, started out at second city. Took him 2 years to get on stage. Helped create strangers with candy, later the Dana Carvey show, and the Ambiguously Gay Duo. He did a stint at ABC good morning America to get his face out there. Then the daily show, and the rest you stated. He never wanted to be a news reporter.

Not even sure he was on local SC news. Any proof of that? Even if so, lots of actors use local news to get used to performing on camera.

I know I remember seeing a story maybe about 10-15 years ago where they stated he worked briefly as an actual local news reporter in South Carolina (he still has family who live in Charleston) but when I tried Googling it, it drew a blank and either he wasn't one(which I'll retract from my original post if so) or his time working in that job was so brief, most MSM outlets don't feel its worth mentioning or pointing out in his bio. Lots of actors who do start out working for their local news stations actually end up going back to it as a steady, more permanent job especially since Hollywood rejects or minimizes any potential success of 10-20x actors/actresses careers than those its helps promote or discovers. Hollywood can be a very selfish, self-centered, criminally uncaring immoral entertainment industry.

Great, legendary actors like George Clooney had to essentially make their own luck, by nearly working his arse into the ground despite having solid family industry connections and credentials. For that, he will always have my unwavering respect and support.

 

[Saintman2884]

Okay, until I find out whether or not he actually once was a local SC news reporter, I edited out any mentioning or references to him being a former news reporter/journalist in of itself.

 

[insidejob]

What is this thread about again?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

What is this thread about again?

It seems to be about how comedians and late-night talk show hosts should be held to the same standards as journalists and reporters when it comes to partisan pandering.

 

[insidejob]

It seems to be about how comedians and late-night talk show hosts should be held to the same standards as journalists and reporters when it comes to partisan pandering.

That's what I thought.

 

[Saintman2884]

It seems to be about how comedians and late-night talk show hosts should be held to the same standards as journalists and reporters when it comes to partisan pandering.

You don't think some people shouldnt be dismissed out of hand if they view or see comedians or talk show hosts as being guilty of being held to some of the same standards when they make partisan politics or partisan pandering a significant that, highly visible part of their shows?

You don't think Stewart or Colbert now don't engage in partisan political rangling in their platforms as TV show hosts? I mean, its not like some comedians/writers/satirists haven't run and even won political office (Al Franken was a 2-term Senator from Minnesota until he became a #MeToo casualty.)

 

[Saintman2884]

That's what I thought.

Inside, I ask again, you wouldn't characterize a good portion of Colbert's monologues, on-air criticisms, or calling out of mostly GOP or conservative politicians on his show disproportionately as partisan pandering? From a purely logical standpoint, it does comes across like that and if true, shouldn't be a difficult thing to admit, even if one likes or agrees with most of Colbert's commentary.

 

[insidejob]

Inside, I ask again, you wouldn't characterize a good portion of Colbert's monologues, on-air criticisms, or calling out of mostly GOP or conservative politicians on his show disproportionately as partisan pandering? From a purely logical standpoint, it does comes across like that and if true, shouldn't be a difficult thing to admit, even if one likes or agrees with most of Colbert's commentary.

I don't watch him. Can't talk about it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You don't think some people shouldnt be dismissed out of hand if they view or see comedians or talk show hosts as being guilty of being held to some of the same standards when they make partisan politics or partisan pandering a significant that, highly visible part of their shows?

You don't think Stewart or Colbert now don't engage in partisan political rangling in their platforms as TV show hosts? I mean, its not like some comedians/writers/satirists haven't run and even won political office (Al Franken was a 2-term Senator from Minnesota until he became a #MeToo casualty.)

I don't give a crap what comedians and late-night talk show hosts do or say in terms of pandering to their audience. It's their damn job, much like Greenwald's is supposed to be a fair and impartial reporter, which I expect out of journalists and news outlets. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand.

 

[Saintman2884]

I don't give a crap what comedians and late-night talk show hosts do or say in terms of pandering to their audience. It's their damn job, much like Greenwald's is supposed to be a fair and impartial reporter, which I expect out of journalists and news outlets. I fail to see how this is so hard to understand.

Except journalists, in general, aren't in reality "fair and impartial" in the truest, semantics sense of the word. Its not really me being picky or temperamental, or nagging, its just accepting our limitations as human beings. I also don't have a hard time understanding, either.

But, if you're Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert and you inadvertently say stupid, mean or partisan things about other people, then you are taking some of the responsibilities whether you like it or not. Bill Maher is no stranger to controversy in making controversial comments or racially insensitive statements, but then again, thats not exactly a well-hidden secret among most people.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Except journalists, in general, aren't in reality "fair and impartial" in the truest, semantics sense of the word. Its not really me being picky or temperamental, or nagging, its just accepting our limitations as human beings. I also don't have a hard time understanding, either.

But, if you're Bill Maher or Stephen Colbert and you inadvertently say stupid, mean or partisan things about other people, then you are taking some of the responsibilities whether you like it or not. Bill Maher is no stranger to controversy in making controversial comments or racially insensitive statements, but then again, thats not exactly a well-hidden secret among most people.

Being a human being with all of the limitations that entails does not absolve someone from not even attempting to behave in the manner dictated by their chosen profession. There is a world of difference between what we expect out of a comedian and what we expect out of a journalist.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

It seems this bears posting (or re-posting? I get the feeling I posted it here recently):




Fast-forward 17 years later and Tucker has done nothing yet prove again and again that he's only interested at entertainment and spewing outrage porn to anyone who will consume it, doing irreparable damage to this Republic in the process.

Meanwhile, the comedian is putting out thoughtful and civil discourse such as this:

 

[dtc]

What is this thread about again?

run on sentences I guess.

 

[Saintman2884]

It seems this bears posting (or re-posting? I get the feeling I posted it here recently):




Fast-forward 17 years later and Tucker has done nothing yet prove again and again that he's only interested at entertainment and spewing outrage porn to anyone who will consume it, doing irreparable damage to this Republic in the process.

Meanwhile, the comedian is putting out thoughtful and civil discourse such as this:

Except, he's not really putting out this information and trying to get his points across as some funny, ironic, sarcastic satirist or comedian and frankly, he hasn't done so for a long time, now years since he left Daily Show. Not really, if you honestly want to examine his perspective, barbed opinions on various socio-political issues. But, unlike Colbert, at least Maher and Stewart still try to talk to reasonably reach out and pick the brains of right-wing idealogues, writers, newspaper columnists instead of pretending they don't exist. Maher's a pompous, elitist jerk, so it depends what day it is or what his mood might be if he even decided to discuss politics with "unwashed masses" he probably sees people like me and you, but I suspect Stewart's a very sincere passionate type of guy and he wouldn't have any adversion talking or speaking his mind if he had some time to kill.

For that, I can at least respect both men even if I disagree with them politically. Colbert wouldn't be caught dead interviewing Steve Bannion or Ann Coulter much less invite them on to his show.

Tucker Carlson never was really liked or respected as a conservative commentator, even while at CNN. Maybe some grudging respect but even as recently as 8-9 years ago, most liberal, mainstream news anchors or journalists likely viewed him as an intelligent, well-meaning, but lightweight political type. A man who tried and mostly failed punching way above his weight and who'd probably would have been better off as some associate history professor at a Midwestern university, but a pushover.

Carlson has "sold out" as a FOX News anchor because he feels his former fellow CNN and MSNBC colleagues, corporate execs never liked or appreciated him anyway and if he's going to be disliked or hated by them, he'll go overboard to get their attention and be put on their crap list.

Saul, you're being honest when you point out Tucker Carlson was a MSM disappointment and a respected, conservative pundit, behind the scenes, he was seen as a pushover, a lightweight who didn't have any consistency or constancy. I've seen or read a few left-leaning political journals/magazines who haven't been as intellectually honest in their depictions of describing Carlson's once-more respected reputation before FOX News recently or what they really thought of him 8-9 years ago.

 

[Saintman2884]

run on sentences I guess.

you mad, bro?

 

[dtc]

you mad, bro?

Mad? No,but it would be nice if you could post something that wasn't a wall of nonsensical text?

Maybe you could address the points at hand in a more concise manner so that the rest of us could follow along, no?

 

[Saintman2884]

Mad? No,but it would be nice if you could post something that wasn't a wall of nonsensical text?

Maybe you could address the points at hand in a more concise manner so that the rest of us could follow along, no?

Oh, Ive shown I can do that.

Usually, on MAP and SR, quite a bit of the issues we discuss aren't easy, "cookie-cutter" 1-2 paragraph explanations. Many of them require nuance, specific context, and maybe lengthier explanations. I'd rather give a long explanation regarding a complicated subject or series of issues then give some short, over-simplistic response that's dumbed-down. I hate dumbed-down responses that put me at risk of sounding stupid or uninformed then "walls of nonsensical text".

If all you feel I've ever written on SR or MAP was or is nonsensical wall of text thats gibberish, that's more of a reflection on you because you've never liked me and tried making it personal to me in the past. There's been many more MAP or SR posters who have told me they've liked my posts or takes on things in threads, or if they didnt agree with me wholly, at least told me I made some decent points.

Were they all just telling me what I wanted to hear to make me feel better?